+1
see my comments on [2].
Also because the Camel code base grows and grows because we got some good
contributions and implemented new features, making the core code base as
much easy as possible is an important thing IMO. Throwing away all the
hacks is a good possibility.
Also doing the same thing equal should be important for us and our users.
e.g. constantly using protocol://user@host:port instead of
protocol://host:port?username=xxx or so...
But this is another discussion... ;-)
Christian
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1
>
> I don't think camel endpoints are real Uris as they are not really
> used to point to a resource, though they can fall back to a URI in
> simple cases. The fact that we use URI-like syntax is I think because
> it's easy to use and quite easily understandable. We could have use
> json or whatever syntax here. We could even support multiple syntax
> (actually, json for configuring endpoints could make a lot of sense
> too as in some cases, it would be even more readable).
>
> I don't really see any problem with the way things work now, and
> changing what works just for the sake of complying with a spec we
> don't care about, is not really worth it imho.
>
> This would also lead to less coherence, as for example, the property
> placeholder syntax ${xxx} inspired from spring is used in various
> place, not only uris, but also expressions and such. That would
> raise confusion.
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Using URIs to identify and configure Endpoints is a notable Apache Camel
> > innovation. This feature was present in Camel from its first release. The
> > definition of the URIs syntax in unambiguous and defined in RFC-2396 [1].
> >
> > Some components introduced along the way do not use valid URIs and this
> > needs to be corrected. This vote is intended to formalize the apparent
> lazy
> > consensus in the [discuss] thread [2] on the dev@ list. This vote
> reflects
> > agreement with the principle only. If this vote passes the details of the
> > solution will be fleshed out later.
> >
> >
> > [ ] +1 Camel MUST use valid URIs for Endpoint configuration
> > [ ] -1 Camel does not need to use valid URIs (please provide reason).
> >
> > Vote is open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hadrian Zbarcea
> > Principal Software Architect
> > Talend, Inc
> > http://coders.talend.com/
> > http://camelbot.blogspot.com/
> >
> > [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
> > [2]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201206.mbox/%3C4FD60168.5090009%40gmail.com%3E
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> http://fusesource.com
>
